Athiesm is a Faith?

[Mark 13:13]

I have to say I don't always get the names used around here. I understand what a dick is but does cock also mean you are pushy, or something else? Also, I'll never understand how "twat" is a put down of any kind. I've never met one I didn't enjoy. What is the negative association for cunt et al? If I were you, I'd claim the mantle of twat, if you really had to choose.

Seriously, no offense intended. Mostly just having fun with the word play. Let me see, which of those descriptors have I experienced from you .. disingenuous? Yeah, a bit at times. Dishonest? Only when refusing to acknowledge a reasonable point you find distasteful. Condescending? Only by association; Christians who claim to know what's going down because they're on the A list of the big cheeze according to their special book all come off this way to a degree. You are less egregious than some. Presumptuous? Again, only by association given your claim to possessing a magic book with all the answers, etc.

So chin up. I don't know why you want to come on an atheist site to receive a predictable reception for the stuff you espouse. But you're less thick headed and daff than some we get through here. Happy new year, god's chosen. May your anticipation of the reward you look forward to in heaven compensate you for the likely let down you will never realize anyway.

thanks i think; and to be honest I asked myself the same question about why an athiest forum. In time I hope when we get through with the initial "pleasantries" I hope that even though we will disagree on a lot we will recognise in each other honest searchers even if we are looking from different places and through a different lens. At least you guys want to talk about this stuff and I do find it forces me to think and that's always a good thing. I do wish you guys a happy new year.

[Aractus]

Anyone here who has a belief that God doesn't exist, please speak up.

I'm GLAD you asked! You mean like this?

I believe that there is no god for the same reason I believe there is no elephant in my kitchen, lack of evidence for the positive position.

[Annik]

In order to not get tripped up by colloquialisms and semantics, it might be better to ask: Who is a gnostic atheist vs agnostic atheist?

[Mark 13:13]

I claim to believe my God exists now tell me whats false in my claim

please don't hide behind semantics.

We can remove "claim to" from this statement because it is a blatent attempt to hide behind a trap.

You're being disingenuous for the above statement because we both know you believe your god exists, not that you 'claim to believe'. You either do or you don't.

OK lets remove claim to..... I believe in God so it is now a statement of fact which again does give me a burden of proof to anyone apart from myself and the evidence I can accept only has to be acceptable to me.

[Lion IRC]

Am I seeing things? Is this a dream? Did Daniel really just refute a fellow Christian? O_o

You ought to see how we argue in private!

...because the topic of God matters.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Am I seeing things? Is this a dream? Did Daniel really just refute a fellow Christian? O_o

You ought to see how we argue in private!

...because the topic of God matters.

I've seen that before. Usually ends up with somebody getting burned on a stake.

[Lion IRC]

please don't hide behind semantics.

We can remove "claim to" from this statement because it is a blatent attempt to hide behind a trap.

You're being disingenuous for the above statement because we both know you believe your god exists, not that you 'claim to believe'. You either do or you don't.

OK lets remove claim to..... I believe in God so it is now a statement of fact which again does give me a burden of proof to anyone apart from myself and the evidence I can accept only has to be acceptable to me.

No Mark 13:13
Wrong wrong wrong! You are obviously not a True Christian if you think the burden of proof rests (unbalanced) on Christians.


Just kidding.

I actually think the burden of proof rests on whoever wants to prove something. Yes, Christians DO want to demonstrate, not only what they believe/think, but also WHY.

The flip-side is that the person who thinks there is no God(s) is making what amounts to an extraordinary claim in the eyes of millions/billions of theists.
viz; that there is no/never has been any evidence whatsoever for the existence of divine (extraterrestrial) beings or afterlife (multiverse.)

[Mark 13:13]

Dear oh dear, you can't even present coherent arguments ...

To answer a few people above who ask about the debate about words let me quote wiki "Depending on the religion, faith is belief in a god or gods or in the doctrines or teachings of the religion. Informal usage of faith can be quite broad, including trust or belief without proof,[1] and "faith" is often used as a substitute for "hope", "trust" or "belief"." I am using the later " belief without proof " for Faith and would contend that both Athiests and Theists if they are honest with themselves will accept that when pushed back to the metaphorical which came first the egg or the chicken will accept that we have no proof beyond the reality we can experience.

You know i thought the word metaphorical would be clue I wasn't wanting to debate natural history but was using chicken and egg metaphor in its most ancient philosophical sence "The chicken or the egg causality dilemma is commonly stated as "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" To ancient philosophers, the question about the first chicken or egg also evoked the questions of how life and the universe in general began" WIKI. so puleeeze.

We both have to accept a contradiction to logic, that being either something always existed or was created from nothing (and i mean nothing as in no fields no energy, real nothing)

That's fine to SAY "real nothing", but can you find it? No you can't, because nothingness doesn't exist, and many scientists believe that it can't exist. Thus your definition in attempting to restrict science is futile: if nothingness can't exist, [i]then you can't start from nothing, can you?

[/i] rolf so if your premise about nothing is true then all the mathematics that underpin modern science has no basis in reality as there is no answer to 2-2= , the answer does not exist. and my primary teacher was wrong to tell me we don't have to start at 1 we can start at 0 we can even start at less than nothing -1, 0, 1 sorry I couldn't help myself on that one !! but seriously what i am saying is if science decides to say that matter just popped out of nothing then what are they talking about? and if it did pop out of something then i would be entitled to ask where that something came from.[/i]

Likewise thinking some athiests (in my opinion) would contend that the Cosmos does not need a creator to exist which again is a statement that can never be proved as each time we push back creation we find a new mystery that needs explaining but they have faith that science will finally push back the boundary to a final answer.

The universe is the way it is. There's no "pushing back" to anything. Just because you can't count the exact number of fundamental particles, doesn't mean you can't understand how the universe behaves. And it doesn't take faith, it takes science. Well am only stating how physicist describe what they are doing and they should know what they are talking about ( do I need to go and get quotes for that too?)

And while we're at it what are these "mysteries" you're rattling on about anyway?? oh come on really have you never heard of the Trinity for one.

Other athiest would argue like Einstein in a non personal God alien to the general monotheist God again with no undisputable proof.

Einstein rejected the possibility of any god, including a "non-personal god".
I would suggest than on reading through this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_v...t_Einstein any fair minded person could take the view that my summation is a fair one I did spot this quote in there also "According to biographer Walter Isaacson, Einstein was more inclined to denigrate disbelievers than the faithful.[20] Einstein said in correspondence, "[T]he fanatical atheists...are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against the traditional 'opium of the people'—cannot bear the music of the spheres."
Try and do better next time. Also, do you realize you're on an atheist forum? Stop consistently misspelling atheist!!

[/i]apologies I know that spelling is very crucial in these discussions and will try to exercise more care [i]

[Lion IRC]

You ought to see how we argue in private!

...because the topic of God matters.

I've seen that before. Usually ends up with somebody getting burned on a stake.

Whatever became of that formal debate idea about Christianity being an overall nett benefit to human kind?

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

I've seen that before. Usually ends up with somebody getting burned on a stake.

Whatever became of that formal debate idea about Christianity being an overall nett benefit to human kind?

I really don't care about how good or bad Christianity is, that doesn't change the fact that it's a delusion.